One month after the Supreme Court struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act that identified certain states that needed federal permission to change their voting laws, the Obama Administration announced Thursday that it would use a different part of the law to reimpose similar pre-clearance requirements in the state of Texas.

“This is the Department’s first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last,” Attorney General Eric Holder said during a speech to the National Urban League convention in Philadelphia. “My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against discrimination whenever it is found.”

The Supreme Court voided the part of the law historically used to limit voting law changes in states like Texas, with histories of discrimination at the ballot box, because of the way the states were identified. But Holder said that the Justice Department would now use other parts of the law to prevent discrimination before elections. These include Section 2, which blocks any racially prejudiced practices, and Section 3, a more obscure provision of the act, that allows federal courts to enforce pre-approval measures for voting changes in states and jurisdictions that engage in blatant discrimination, a violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

“Based on the evidence of intentional racial discrimination that was presented last year in the redistricting case, Texas v. Holder – as well as the history of pervasive voting-related discrimination against racial minorities that the Supreme Court itself has recognized – we believe that the State of Texas should be required to go through a preclearance process whenever it changes its voting laws and practices,” Holder said.

The Justice Department action against Texas will likely affect the voter identification law State Attorney General Greg Abbott rushed to implement a mere two hours after the Supreme Court decision. And the announcement comes as the state senate in North Carolina, another state that had jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act, is moving forward with a sweeping restrictive voting bill that requires voters to present voter identification at the polls, reduces early voting by a week, ends early registration for 16 and 17-year-olds, and prohibits counties from extending polling hours on election days. Other states like Alabama and Mississippi, once covered by the pre-clearance provisions, have also been considering changes to their voting laws.

As a result of the move, the Justice Department hopes to maintain the current system, wherein possible discrimination is headed off before an election. “If you only find out about voter discrimination after the elections, the relief is going to be limited,” said Myrna Perez, the deputy director of the Brennan Center for Justice based at New York University School of Law.

Since the ruling, Holder has been speaking out against the court’s decision, calling the Voting Rights Act a “cornerstone of civil rights law” while expressing his deep disappointment in June, and referring to it as a “flawed decision” at an NAACP conference last week.

On the federal level, Congress has the power, under the Supreme Court ruling, to establish a new formula for pre-clearance to identify the states that need federal permission to change their laws. On Thursday, Holder reiterated his desire for Congress to take up the call. “After all, this has never been a partisan issue,” he said. “Every reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by a Republican president. It’s a question of our values as a nation. It goes to the heart of who we are as a people.”

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a key Republican supporter of the Voting Rights Act, says after the August recess, he expects Congress will begin working toward fixing the act. “The important thing is that we fix it right,” Sensenbrenner told TIME. “If we don’t fix it right and it’s found unconstitutional again we’re not going to get another chance.”

But there is no certainty that Congress will act before the next election, prompting Holder’s decision to take action unilaterally. “As this debate unfolds, it’s important for all Americans to note that—despite the Supreme Court’s flawed ruling—our voting rights remain fully intact,” Holder said.

I pray every night South Carolina is next or right now. The discrimination, the block to minority and women is unbelievable. Last election a county (Richland) the Republicans and they didn't even put out voting machines. Lines were 8-12 hours long, people of color were turned away. I'm a white, female, liberal, Democrat, elderly woman and have no representation in South Carolina's Legislature or in the halls of Congress. I and many others reported thi to DOJ with no effect. If you have time or find it in your heart please contact DOJ.

The Attorney General of the United States, the #1 law enforcer of the nation, has publicly stated that there are some laws which he will not enforce. Doesn't that just make the statists giggle with glee.

Since Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement
Thursday that the Department of Justice would “ask a federal court in
Texas to subject the State of Texas to a preclearance regime similar to
the one required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” the reaction
from Texas Republicans has been furious. But Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner
(R-WI), who sponsored the 2006 Voting Rights Act re-authorization, backed the move as legally proper.

Though the 15th amendment
to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed that the right to vote shall not be
abridged on the basis of “race, color, or previous condition
servitude,” and expressly granted to Congress the power to enforce that
right by “appropriate legislation,” the U.S. Supreme Court held 5-to-4
last month that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer
constitutional. That portion of the law had established a formula to
determine which jurisdictions were subject to “preclearance” under the
act, meaning that new voting laws in those jurisdictions must be
reviewed by the Justice Department or a federal court before they can
take effect. Sensenbrenner has vowed to find a bipartisan Congressional fix, but others have threatened to hold it hostage to strict voter ID laws.

In the interim, Holder proposed to use a different part of the law —
the still intact Section 3 — which bring Texas back under federal
supervision if a court finds a recent record of attacks on the
constitutional right to be free from race discrimination in voting in
the Lone Star State. Texas has sought to institute a voter ID law and a redistricting map that would likely suppress minority voters. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) slammed the move as an “end-run around the Supreme Court.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the move demonstrative of a “longstanding pattern of refusing to follow the law.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) accused the Obama administration of “going around the voters and now the Supreme Court” and “bullying” his state. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) said
the attempt to block Texas voter suppression efforts was an “affront to
the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and is hostile to the
Constitution.”

But Sensenbrenner told The Hill
on Thursday that these critics were misrepresenting the facts. “The
[Justice] department’s actions are consistent with the Voting Rights
Act,” he said, noting that Voting Rights Act still allows challenges to
changes that would suppress minority voters.

“Increased litigation will be one of the major consequences of the
court’s decision as courts will have to litigate more allegations of
voter discrimination under Section 2 and whether jurisdictions should be
‘bailed-in’ to preclearance coverage,” he added.

Barack Hussein Obama is destroying freedom in these great United States. Libtards try to twist what our founding fathers meant when they wrote the US Constitution thousands of years ago. All people are not created equal. The people that built this country up from a desert wasteland knew what they were creating and it wasn't some playground for latte drinking communists to spread their lies.

The last of the dying Dixiecrats who went from Democrat to Republican (like Rick Perry) Hall is one of our most outed racist. He's so bad even the Dallas paper can't recommend him for re-election, and that's bad. He's as racist as our maps, which are drawn targeting race. There's no disputing that.

"...Holder said that the Justice Department would now use other parts of the
law to prevent discrimination before elections. These include Section
2, which blocks any racially prejudiced practices, and Section 3, a more
obscure provision of the act, that allows federal courts to enforce
pre-approval measures for voting changes in states and jurisdictions
that engage in blatant discrimination, a violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments."

If you still think this is about voter fraud then try to explain this.

The only reason to prohibit extending polling hours is to insure that when Dem heavy districts are intentionally under equipped with voting equipment and voting stations, even if the voters continue to wait in lines anyway they will be prevented from voting. They passed a law to insure that their voter suppression tricks would succeed and people would be denied their right to vote.

Because it's completely unnecessary and undemocratic. There's practically no existing voter fraud because there's practically no way to game the traditional system (you register to vote and then they find your name on the voter role at the polls). Except, of course, by implementing restrictive voter ID requirements that tend to disenfranchise the poor, minorities and students who often vote for Democrats more than Republicans.

The blog or opinion posts you're reading in the Morning News is something to really back you up. And yeah, that racist stuff..............pffff

You might want to go take a look at Delaware. They are very short on African Americans in their congress. Evidently their districting is laid out wrong or their Governor is racist like claim. I think Delaware should be added to the Voting Rights Act Ruling. Go ahead and add R.I., Maryland, amongst other states up there that have a lower ratio of African Americans in their congress compared to population. So, as I said, does this mean that their districting needs to be redone or are the voters just racist?

@shepherdwong@Datrebor So why doesn't the NCAACP allow the poor, minorities and students into their conferences/speeches? You know, they require an ID to get in. Why don't the Democrats allow the poor, minorities or students into their conventions since they require IDs?

You had to have one to see Holder speak and to attend the 2012 convention. Yet he and Democrats stood right there and tells everybody the requirement hurts minorities. That's either hypocrisy or further proof it's nothing but a lie.

The signing of the book of the first lady(not invitation), looking on whitehouse.gov you will see that it is a requirement for anybody 18 or older to show a valid photo ID to visit, for the ACLU to take your case you must have a photo ID, Federal Courts, Holder's office in Washington...I guess that means all of these minorities without ID's can't get these signings nor visit the White House? Your excuse of invitations goes to show that certain minorities would never have a chance of making it.

To use the minority excuse is pathetic. Another lady, white, was saying how so many college students don't have IDs. How did she get into college? She has to register every year. How?

Since the US citizens have to register to vote, ID required, or re-register if they move or change their name how would that work?

@icepuck68@shepherdwong@Datrebor, bodies public, like the NAACP or the Democratic party are not government organization and are not subject to constitutional restrictions when it comes to voting within their organization or admitting persons to their functions.

@icepuck68"So why doesn't the NCAACP allow the poor, minorities and students into
their conferences/speeches? You know, they require an ID to get in."

Really? Because admission to NAACP events are restricted to people who are invited. Voting in the United States is restricted only to US citizens who register to vote. You people really are thicker than meatloaf.

@dnno1@icepuck68@jmac Uh, we must be talking about something different. I'm referring to their state senate and hor. They have numerous districts. I don't see all of those HOR's and Senators coming from one district.

@manlyman This was a chart that the Black Caucus put out. It was thrown at me by someone discussing almost the same things. It showed the #'s of congressmen/women in each party (2009)and the +/- ratio by population. Delaware was the second worse. Yes, the Voter's Right states were still negative, but so was a total of 43 states. He threw Alaska, who had 0, at me who must have at least 4 AAs(African Americans). I looked deeper into this. No AA was running for office. Arizona was behind but only 1 Dem. was currently running for office. Correction, another Republican was running. Are the Dems going to vote for him? There is much more to this than simply not having enough in your congress. What if a black Anthony Weiner was running? Is he to automatically be put into office? A black Republican? Holder is now attacking TX(ranked 15th). Going by the 2012 election(Blue/Red states), Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Wisconsin, RI, Minn and Penn all have worse ratios of AA in their congress(that's half of those ahead of TX). This is nothing but a show he's putting on and proof that, if this is a race issue, it's spread throughout the country.

Pssssssssssst, Senators don't come from an individual city or county. There are only two from a state. Those White Folk up there in those Liberal states just must not like African Americans in their Senate.

It's even funnier how you're claiming that this happened all across the country in every single state. All those Democratic states messed up.